Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Media 84d 76 School Leadership Concepts and Evidence Summary - Redacted
Media 84d 76 School Leadership Concepts and Evidence Summary - Redacted
Media 84d 76 School Leadership Concepts and Evidence Summary - Redacted
1. Introduction .............................................................................. 2
4. Conclusion .............................................................................. 12
4.1 Comparing the models .................................................... 12
4.2 Implications for leadership development ...................... 13
References .................................................................................... 14
1
1. Introduction
This is a shortened version of the final report of desk research on school leadership commissioned by the
National College for School Leadership (NCSL). This paper aims to provide a summary synthesis of the most
important sources in a form which is intended to be accessible for practitioners and policy-makers. The report
includes theoretical literature, to show how leadership has been conceptualised, and empirical literature, to
demonstrate whether and how the research evidence supports these concepts of school leadership. The report
also summarises the key implications of the desk research for leadership development.
Cuban (1988, p.190) says that “there are more than 350 definitions of leadership but no clear and
unequivocal understanding as to what distinguishes leaders from non-leaders”.
A central element in many definitions of leadership is that there is Leadership may be understood as ‘influence’ but this notion is
a process of influence. Yukl (2002, p.3) explains this influence neutral in that it does not explain or recommend what goals or
process: actions should be sought through this process. However, certain
alternative constructs of leadership focus on the need for
“Most definitions of leadership reflect the assumption leadership to be grounded in firm personal and professional values.
that it involves a social influence process whereby Wasserberg argues that these core values should be:
intentional influence is exerted by one person [or • schools are concerned with learning and all members of the
group] over other people [or groups] to structure the school community are learners.
activities and relationships in a group or organisation.”
• every member of the school community is valued as an
individual.
Yukl’s use of ‘person’ or ‘group’ serves to emphasise that leadership
may be exercised by teams as well as individuals. This view is • the school exists to serve its pupils and the local community.
reinforced by Harris (2002) and Leithwood (2001) who both • learning is about the development of the whole person and
advocate distributed leadership as an alternative to traditional top- happens in and out of classrooms.
down leadership models.
• people prosper with trust, encouragement and praise.
(Wasserberg 1999, p.155).
3
2.3 Leadership and vision These projects show the high level of support for the notion of
visionary leadership but, in practice, it remains highly problematic .
Vision is increasingly regarded as an important component of “Inspiring a shared vision is the leadership practice with which
leadership. Beare, Caldwell and Millikan (1989), for example, say [heads] felt most uncomfortable,” (Kouzes and Posner 1996, p.24).
that “outstanding leaders have a vision of their schools - a mental Fullan (1992) is even more critical, suggesting that visionary leaders
picture of a preferred future - which is shared with all in the school may damage rather than improve their schools:
community” (p.99). They articulate four emerging generalisations
about vision: “The current emphasis on vision in leadership can be
misleading. Vision can blind leaders in a number of
1. Outstanding leaders have a vision for their organisations.
ways . . . The high-powered, charismatic principal who
2. Vision must be communicated in a way which secures
‘radically transforms the school’ in four or five years
commitment among members of the organisation.
can . . . be blinding and misleading as a role model . . .
3. Communication of vision requires communication of meaning. Principals are blinded by their own vision when they
4. Attention should be given to institutionalising vision if feel they must manipulate the teachers and the school
projects and commentaries on leadership in primary schools: Force illustrates a number of problems about the development and
articulation of ‘vision’ in English and Welsh schools. Their study of
• Nias et al’s (1992) study shows that primary heads “provided a
12 self-selected ‘effective’ schools shows that most heads were able
vision for the staff and the school” (p.46).
to describe “some sort of vision” but they were “neither surprising
• Southworth (1993) suggests that heads are motivated to work nor striking nor controversial. They are closely in line with what one
hard “because their leadership is the pursuit of their individual might expect of the British system of education,” (p.35).
visions” (p.47).
Basic Possesses a set of goals derived from Ministry shape the goals, motivations, and actions of others.
and Board expectations. Frequently they initiate change to reach existing and
new goals . . . Leadership . . . takes . . . much ingenuity,
Intermediate Develops school goals consistent with the
energy and skill.”
principal’s articulated vision.
(p.xx)
5
The dichotomy in Britain and elsewhere is that, while leadership is
often preferred, for example by setting up a National College for
School Leadership, governments are encouraging a technical-
rational, or management, approach through their stress on
performance and public accountability (Glatter 1999, Levacic et al
1999).
The vast literature on leadership has inevitably generated a plethora of alternative, and competing,
models. Some writers have sought to cluster these various conceptions into a number of broad themes or
‘types’. In this section, we review eight of these broad theories, using a typology adapted from Leithwood,
Jantzi and Steinbach (1999).
7
3.2 Transformational leadership Leithwood’s (1994) research suggests that there is some empirical
support for the transformational leadership model. He reports on
Gunter (2001, p.69) says that transformational leadership is about seven quantitative studies and concludes that:
building a unified common interest between leaders and followers.
Transformational approaches are often contrasted with “Transformational leadership practices, considered as a
transactional leadership: composite construct, had significant direct and indirect
effects on progress with school-restructuring initiatives
“Transactional leadership is leadership in which and teacher-perceived student outcomes,”
relationships with teachers are based upon an exchange (p.506)
Moral leadership assumes that the critical focus of leadership ought “Participative leadership . . . assumes that the decision-making
to be on the values and ethics of leaders themselves. Authority and processes of the group ought to be the central focus of the group,”
influence are to be derived from defensible conceptions of what is (Leithwood et al 1999, p.12). This is a normative model which is
right or good (Leithwood et al 1999, p.10). Sergiovanni (1984, p.10) based on three criteria:
says that “excellent schools have central zones composed of values
and beliefs that take on sacred or cultural characteristics.” • participation will increase school effectiveness.
• participation is justified by democratic principles.
Gold et al’s (2002) research in English primary, secondary and • in the context of site-based management, leadership is
special schools provides some evidence about the nature of the potentially available to any legitimate stakeholder,
values held and articulated by heads regarded as ‘outstanding’ by (Leithwood et al 1999, p.12).
OfSTED inspectors. These heads demonstrated the following values
and beliefs through their words and deeds: Sergiovanni (1984, p.13) also points to the importance of a
• equal opportunities and in easing the pressures on school principals. “The burdens of
• equity or justice leadership will be less if leadership functions and roles are shared
• high expectations and if the concept of leadership density were to emerge as a viable
• engagement with stakeholders replacement for principal leadership” (original author’s emphasis).
• co-operation
• teamwork Participative leadership is an attractive notion underpinned by
• commitment democratic ideals. It has been popular in the literature for many
9
3.5 Managerial leadership 3.6 Postmodern leadership
The notion of ‘managerial leadership’ may appear to be a This is a relatively recent model of leadership. Keough and Tobin
contradiction, particularly in the light of the distinctions outlined (2001, p.2) provide a definition as a starting point for linking
earlier in this report. Nevertheless, it merits separate consideration postmodern leadership to educational policy: “current postmodern
because it serves to demonstrate that a narrow view of culture celebrates the multiplicity of subjective truths as defined by
‘management’ is often adopted: experience and revels in the loss of absolute authority”.
“Managerial leadership assumes that the focus of Keough and Tobin (p.11-13) identify several key features of
leaders ought to be on functions, tasks and behaviours postmodernism:
and that if these functions are carried out competently • language does not reflect reality
the work of others in the organisation will be • reality does not exist; there are multiple realities
facilitated. Most approaches to managerial leadership • any situation is open to multiple interpretations
also assume that the behaviour of organisational • situations must be understood at local level with particular
members is largely rational. Authority and influence attention to diversity
are allocated to formal positions in proportion to the
status of those positions in the organisational The most useful point to emerge from this analysis is that leaders
hierarchy,” should respect, and give attention to, the diverse and individual
(Leithwood et al 1999, p.14)
perspectives of stakeholders. They should also avoid reliance on the
hierarchy because this concept has little meaning in such a fluid
This definition is remarkably close to that adopted earlier by Bush organisation.
(1995) in respect to just one of his six models of management,
‘formal models’.
“Interpersonal intelligence is the authentic range of All the models of leadership examined hitherto are partial. They
intuitive behaviours derived from sophisticated self- provide valid and helpful insights into one particular aspect of
awareness, which facilitates effective engagement with leadership. Some focus on the process by which influence is exerted
others,” while others emphasise one or more dimensions of leadership.
(West-Burnham 2001, p.2)
“Much of the teachers’ day is taken up in an intensity “This approach assumes that what is important is how
of relationships. Understanding the changing nature of leaders respond to the unique organisational
relationships with young students, the changing context circumstances or problems . . . there are wide
of their lives, and developing appropriate and effective variations in the contexts for leadership and that, to be
responses to both their personal and academic needs effective, these contexts require different leadership
requires constant reflection and adjustment,” responses . . . individuals providing leadership,
(p.67) typically those in formal positions of authority, are
capable of mastering a large repertoire of leadership
These pressures are even more evident in the work of school practices. Their influence will depend, in large
leaders and suggests a requirement for high level personal and measure, on such mastery,”
interpersonal skills (Johnston and Pickersgill 1992). (Leithwood et al 1999, p.15)
11
4. Conclusion
4.1 Comparing the models • The interpersonal model emphasises the need for good
relationships between staff, students and other stakeholders.
Leadership can be understood as a process of influence based on • The contingent model outlines an approach that recognises the
clear values and beliefs, leading to a ‘vision’ for the school. The significance of situational leadership, with heads and other
vision is articulated by leaders who seek to gain the commitment of senior staff adapting their approach to the unique
staff and stakeholders to the dream of a better future for the circumstances of their schools.
school, its students and stakeholders.
An integrated model needs to start with a contingent approach
The eight models adapted from Leithwood et al (1999), and because a specific vision for the school, a hallmark of the
summarised in this report, show that concepts of school leadership transformational model, cannot be independent of this context.
are complex and diverse. They provide clear normative frameworks Transformational leadership then provides the basis for articulating
by which leadership can be understood but relatively weak and working towards this vision. Instructional leadership is
empirical support for these constructs. They are also artificial compatible with a transformational approach because it indicates,
distinctions in that most successful leaders are likely to embody in broad terms, what the main priority of any learning organisation
most or all of these approaches in their work. ought to be. Managerial leadership remains important because it is
necessary to ensure effective implementation of policies arising
The eight models provide a starting point for a normative from the outcomes of the transformational process.
assessment of school leadership in the 21st century:
13
References
ALEXANDER, R., ROSE, J. and WOODHEAD, C. (1992), Curriculum DAY, C., HARRIS, A. and HADFIELD M. (2001), Challenging the
Organisation and Classroom Practice in Primary Schools: A Discussion orthodoxy of effective school leadership, International Journal of
Paper, London, Department of Education and Science. Leadership in Education, 4 (1), 39 - 56.
ALLIX, N.M. (2000), Transformational Leadership: Democratic or FULLAN, M. (1992), Visions that blind, Educational Leadership, 49 (5),
Despotic? Educational Management and Administration, 28 (1), 7 - 19-20.
20.
GLATTER, R. (1999), From struggling to juggling: towards a
BEARE, H., CALDWELL, B., and MILLIKAN, R. (1992), Creating an redefinition of the field of educational leadership and
Excellent School. London: Routledge. management, Educational Management and Administration, 27 (3),
253 - 266.
BEGLEY, P.T. (1994), School Leadership: A Profile Document,
www.oise.utoronto.ca/~vsvede. GOLD, A., EVANS, J., EARLEY, P., HALPIN, D. and COLLARBONE, P.
(2002), Principled Principals? Values-driven Leadership: Evidence from
BOLAM, R., MCMAHON, A., POCKLINGTON, K. and WEINDLING, D. Ten Case Studies of ‘Outstanding’ Leaders, Paper Presented at the
(1993), Effective Management in Schools, London, HMSO. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
New Orleans, April.
BOLMAN, L. and DEAL, T. (1984), Modern approaches to
Understanding and Managing Organisations, San Francisco, Jossey GUNTER, H. (2001), Leaders and Leadership in Education, London,
Bass. Paul Chapman.
BOLMAN, L.G. and DEAL, T.E. (1997), Reframing Organisations: HARRIS, A. (2002), Distributed Leadership in Schools: Leading or
Artistry, Choice and Leadership. San Francisco, CA, Jossey Bass. Misleading?, Paper presented at the British Educational Leadership,
Management and Administration Society annual conference,
BOTTERY, M. (1999), Globalisation and the UK competition state: no Birmingham, September.
room for transformational leadership in education?, School
Leadership and Management, 21 (2), 199-218. JOHNSTON, J. and PICKERSGILL, S. (1992), Personal and
interpersonal aspects of effective team oriented headship in the
BUSH, T. (1995), Theories of Educational Management: Second primary school, Educational Management and Administration, 20 (4),
Edition, London, Paul Chapman. 239-248.
CHIRICHELLO, M. (1999), Building Capacity for Change: KEOUGH, T. and TOBIN, B. (2001), Postmodern Leadership and the
Transformational Leadership for School Principals, Paper presented Policy Lexicon: From Theory, Proxy to Practice, Paper for the Pan-
at ICSEI Conference, January 3-6, San Antonio. Canadian Education Research Agenda Symposium, Quebec, May.
CUBAN, L. (1988), The Managerial Imperative and the Practice of KOUZES, J. and POSNER, B. (1996), The Leadership Challenge, San
Leadership in Schools. Albany, NY, State University of New York Francisco, Jossey Bass.
Press.
LEITHWOOD, K. (1994), Leadership for school restructuring,
Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(4), 498-518.
LEITHWOOD, K., JANTZI, D. and STEINBACH, R. (1999), Changing TUOHY, D. and COGHLAN, D. (1997), Development in schools: a
Leadership for Changing Times, Buckingham, Open University Press. systems approach based on organisational levels, Education
Management and Administration, 25 (1), 65 - 77.
LEVACIC, R., GLOVER, D., BENNETT, N. and CRAWFORD, M. (1999),
Modern headship for the rationally managed school: cerebral and WASSERBERG, M. (1999), Creating the vision and making it happen,
insightful approaches, in Bush, T., Bell, L., Bolam, R., Glatter, R. and in Tomlinson, H., Gunter, H. and Smith, P. (Eds.), Living Headship:
Ribbins P. (eds.) Educational Management: refining theory, policy and Voices, Values and Vision, London, Paul Chapman.
practice, London: Paul Chapman.
WEBB, R. and VULLIAMY, G. (1996), The changing role of the primary
MILLER, T.W. and MILLER, J.M. (2001), Educational leadership in the headteacher, Educational Management and Administration, 24 (3),
new millennium: a vision for 2020, International Journal of 301 - 315.
Leadership in Education, 4 (2), 181 - 189.
WEST-BURNHAM, J. (2001), Interpersonal leadership, NCSL Leading
MORGAN, G. (1986), Images of Organisation, Newbury Park, Edge Seminar, Nottingham, National College for School Leadership.
California, Sage.
YUKL, G. A. (2002) Leadership in Organisations, Fifth Edition, Upper
NATIONAL COLLEGE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP (2001), Leadership Saddle River, NJ, Prentice-Hall.
Development Framework, Nottingham, NCSL.
15